1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to preparation of search warrants. More specifically, the present invention relates to preparation of search warrants in realtime for generation at a location proximate the location to be searched.
2. Description of the Related Art
Systems have been proposed in the prior art to deal with arrest warrants and bookings. By way of example and not limitation, SAIC of San Diego, Calif. has marketed an automated on-line booking system. Federal Systems of Atlanta, Ga. has marketed an electronic warrant system (xe2x80x9cEWIxe2x80x9d) that allowed a police officer to use a terminal at a detention center or precinct to generate arrest warrants. However, these prior art systems and methods are designed for arrest warrants and mainly consist of automated forms generation systems. Further, these systems did not allow invocation of the system from a site, remote from a judge or magistrate, that was proximate the subject of the warrant.
For example, the IRS has had search warrant software. See, e.g., the IRS Handbook 9.10, ADMINISTRATIVE DATABASES AND SOFTWARE, Chapter 3 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SUPPORT SOFTWARE, [9.10] 3.3.2 (Mar. 11, 1998), discussing a Search Warrant program used to set up information about a search/seizure site, to create an inventory record, to print labels for seized items, and to execute search warrants. The description may be found at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/tax_pro/irm-part/part09/36427.html#ss11.
In general, search warrants differ from arrest warrants. Generally, in the United States a search warrant is not necessary if an arrest warrant is issued because searches can be made incidental to arrest (the so-called xe2x80x9cChimel Rulexe2x80x9d and xe2x80x9cPlain View Doctrinexe2x80x9d). However, this only allows a search of the immediate area and obvious places where the stolen property might be located.
Although so-called xe2x80x9cno-knockxe2x80x9d warrants may be allowed under circumstances involving danger, destruction of evidence, and the possibility of escape, all other situations require a search warrant. However, the time lapse between determining a search is required and obtaining a warrant can lead to spoilation of evidence. Further, in some jurisdictions, search warrants must be executed and returned in a set, sometimes short, time frame.
In situations not involving immediate arrest, police departments therefore often use a search warrant. Search warrants must be obtained from the jurisdiction where the search will be conducted. Many jurisdictions have preprinted forms depending upon the type of crime. Drug cases, for example, may list all controlled substances and associated paraphernalia. The officer or judge may simply cross out the items which are inapplicable. Systems of the prior art most often comprise automated generation of such standard forms. Some include an ability to capture at least a portion of the dynamic form data into a database.
Quite often, a search warrant needs to describe an offense prompting the search warrant as well as supporting facts and specifics for which the search will be conducted. In any event, search warrants are authorized by a judge or magistrate who look over the warrant including its supporting facts, e.g. a search warrant is valid only if the information on it is fresh.
Generally, prior art methods of generating an electronic search warrant require entry of data information pertinent to the warrant by a person using a data entry device located at a police station or courthouse. The prior art does not teach, motivate, or disclose use of realtime, bidirectional audiovisual linkages between a police office or other search warrant server located proximate an object of a search warrant and the judge or magistrate who will issue the search warrant. The prior art does not teach, motivate, or disclose generating the actual search warrant at a location remote from the judge or magistrate and proximate the search warrant server where the search warrant is electronically signed and verified.